Hajera Hajira Fatima vs State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 490 Tel

        HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
            CRIMINAL PETITION No.4073 OF 2020

ORDER:

Heard Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner -

accused No.4, and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on

behalf of respondent No.1 - State. Despite service of notice on

respondent No.2, none appears.

2. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), to quash

the proceedings in C.C. No.4111 of 2019 on the file of XV Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The petitioner herein is

accused No.4 in the said C.C. The offences alleged against him are

under Sections - 498A and 506 of IPC and Sections - 4 and 6 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. The petitioner herein is married sister of accused No.1,

husband of respondent No.2. A perusal of the complaint

dated10.11.2018 lodged by respondent No.2 would reveal that the

marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1 was performed on

27.02.2016 and it is a love marriage. It appears that thereafter

matrimonial disputes arose between them. According to respondent

No.2, accused No.1, his parents - accused Nos.2 and 3 and his sister-

accused No.4 and petitioner herein, started harassing her, both

physically and mentally demanding additional dowry. She has lodged

a complaint with Women Police Station, Charminar, who in turn KL,J Crl.P. No.4073 of 2020

registered a case in Crime No.230 of 2018 for the aforesaid offences.

After completion of investigation, the police have filed charge sheet

and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.4111 of 2019 for the

aforesaid offences. During the course of investigation, the police have

recorded statements of LWs.1 to 5.

4. Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that there is no allegation, much less specific allegation against

the petitioner - accused No.4. She is married sister of husband of

respondent No.2 and she is staying with her husband separately. She

is nothing to do with the matrimonial disputes between respondent

No.2 and accused Nos.1 to 3. Even then, the police filed the charge

sheet against the petitioner implicating her in the present case.

According to him, contents of the complaint lack the ingredients of

the offences alleged against the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit

that earlier respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint on21.08.2017

with Bahadurpura Police Station, who in turn advised her to lodge a

complaint with Women Police Station, South Zone. Accordingly, she

gave a complaint. During counseling, her husband has written MOU

to the effect that he would look after her well and stay separately from

his parents. Even then, she has lodged the present complaint on

10.11.2018 implicating the petitioner herein.

KL,J Crl.P. No.4073 of 2020

6. Referring to the contents of the charge sheet, learned counsel

for the petitioner would submit that there are no specific allegations

against the petitioner herein at all. The contents of charge sheet lacks

the ingredients of offences alleged against the petitioner. Therefore,

on the said grounds, the learned counsel seeks to quash the

proceedings against the petitioner herein.

7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

would submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioner

herein, both in the complaint dated 10.11.2018 and the charge sheet.

He has referred to the contents of the complaint as well as charge

sheet. According to him, there are several triable issues which have to

be elicited during course of trial. The petitioner instead of facing trial

filed the present petition.

8. In view of the above said rival submissions, as stated above,

on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 on 10.11.2018, Women

Police Station have registered a case in Crime No.230 of 2018 for the

aforesaid offences against the petitioner and others. In the complaint

also, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. She is

sister of accused No.1. According to respondent No.2, the petitioner

herein has supported accused No.1 in harassing her, both physically

and mentally. The petitioner and accused Nos.1 to 3 forced

respondent No.2 to get pregnancy aborted. They have harassed her

and ill-treated her. On the threat of pronouncement of divorce, she

got aborted at Gupta Hospital and, thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 3 KL,J Crl.P. No.4073 of 2020

along with petitioner started demanding additional dowry of Rs.5.00

lakhs. She has specifically mentioned about her earlier complaint in

the present complaint.

9. In the statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of

the Code, respondent No.2 has specifically made allegations against

the petitioner herein. The petitioner along with her parents and

brother, accused No.1 harassed her, both physically and mentally.

There is specific allegation against the petitioner that she has forced

respondent No.2 to get pregnancy aborted, and for the said purpose,

the petitioner herein has harassed her along with accused Nos.1 to 3,

and under the threat of pronouncement of divorce, respondent No.2

got her pregnancy aborted on 15.10.2016 in Gupta Hospital. Thus,

there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. Accused

Nos.2 to 4 made a plan to send accused No.1 aboard without even

informing respondent No.2. On 06.01.2018, accused No.1, husband

of respondent No.2 informed that he is going to Mumbai for an

interview and later he sent a message that he went to Kuwait with the

help of accused No.4. Accused No.1 did not take care of respondent

No.2 at the instigation of accused Nos.2 to 4. Thus, prima facie, there

are allegations against the petitioner herein. The police have

specifically mentioned in the charge sheet that accused Nos.1 to 4

have harassed her

10. Whereas, according to the petitioner, there are no specific

allegations against her, but respondent No.2, both in her complaint KL,J Crl.P. No.4073 of 2020

and her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code, has

specifically made allegations against the petitioner. Therefore, it is

not the stage to be considered all these issues as the same have to be

considered only after full-fledged trial.

11. In Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of

Maharashtra1 the Apex Court has categorically held that quashing

criminal proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint

did not disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or

oppressive. If allegations set out in complaint did not constitute

offence of which cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was

open to High Court to quash same. It was not necessary that, a

meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out

whether case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a

reading of complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in light

of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are

disclosed, there would be no justification for High Court to interfere.

The defences that might be available, or facts/aspects which when

established during trial, might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for

quashing complaint at threshold. At that stage, only question relevant

was whether averments in complaint spell out ingredients of a

criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider whether complaint

discloses that prima facie, offences that were alleged against

Respondents. Correctness or otherwise of said allegations had to be

. AIR 2019 SC 847 KL,J Crl.P. No.4073 of 2020

decided only in trial. At initial stage of issuance of process, it was not

open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the

contentions made on behalf of Accused. Criminal complaints could

not be quashed only on ground that, allegations made therein appear

to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against

Accused were prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding

shall not be interdicted.

12. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, as

discussed supra, prima facie, there are specific allegations against the

petitioner herein. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations have

to be elicited during trial and the same will be decided after full-

fledged trial. Thus, the petitioner failed to establish any ground to

quash the proceedings and the present petition is liable to be

dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to face trial and prove her

innocence. The trial Court shall consider the evidence, both

documentary and oral, and pass judgment uninfluenced by any of the

findings of this Court supra.

13. Accordingly, the present Criminal Petition is dismissed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 22nd February, 2021 Mgr